User talk:Uanfala/Archive 10

• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Archive 10
• 11
• 12

Hatnote bot

Hello, you mentioned asking for a hatnote-mover bot at this discussion a few weeks ago: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § A bot to move incorrectly placed hatnotes?

Were you still pursuing this idea? If not, where were you going to put in the request? — Goszei (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Goszei, I was intending to carry that forward, but haven't had the time. It's unlikely that I will be able to any time soon, so you're very welcome to take that up! The usual place to ask for a bot is at Wikipedia:Bot requests. I can think of two considerations worth bearing in mind. One, as hinted at in the last discussion, it needs to be decided whether the bot should also move hatnotes that are preceded only by protection icons or invisible templates (like the engvar ones). This does not appear to be relevant for accessibility, it can be useful for the extremely small minority of users with text-only browsers, and is arguably an improvement to the code, but many (most?) editors would probably not consider these improvements significant enough (hence the reference to WP:COSMETICBOT). The second consideration – and one that's obvious enough – is that hatnotes should be moved up only in the lead. The bot should not do anything to hatnotes found within article sections.

Thanks for following up on that. Let me know if there's anything I can help with, I'll be able to respond to messages on my talk page or to pings. – Uanfala (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Madi

Thanks for your help on Madi; I missed that alternate spelling (obviously). And more importantly, I didn't know that you could ping from an edit summary! That's really useful. Leschnei (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Addressing an oversight

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. For your long-standing contributions to disambiguation pages and thoughtful participation in disambiguation discussions! JHunterJ (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh no! I should have foreseen that my tongue-in-cheek remark at WT:DAB could prompt a kind soul to take pity on me and hand me a barnstar. Thank you though. It would be bad etiquette for me to give you one back now, but I do recognise and appreciate the great work that you do in the area, even though I seemingly so often like to find things to disagree about:) – Uanfala (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I have often (or, uhm, occasionally) consulted the unbarnstarred Uanfala for dab-help, I now do so with even greater awe: do you think this[1] make sense? I am especially unsure about the "one of"-thing. –Austronesier (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'll give the same sort of non-answer that I imagine I must have given before :) So yeah, looks good. There's nothing wrong with an entry beginning like that. Well, I guess it can be argued that some reader might wonder whether "one of the Philippine languages" refers to one particular language that has not been specified, or to any language of the group. This can be avoided with the use of "any", but the potential for confusion here is really only theoretical, so the page is perfectly fine as it is. – Uanfala (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, as always! And beware, "non-answer" might earn you a Modesty Barnstar ;) –Austronesier (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Uanfala

Thank you Uanfala for adding information about dosut Arqamkhawaja (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem. – Uanfala (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Anderson

• EyePalindromeEye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KaineEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Syyyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Three accounts all registered the same day with no contributions other than adding links to Anderson. Still think there's no self-promotion here? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Have a look at this one: ArielARM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This time it's works by Mark Donohue (linguist). Very similar patterns with the other refspammers. All this looks very fishy. @Uanfala, I don't think this is a coincidence. –Austronesier (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's suspicious. I won't object if any references specifically contributed by these users are removed, but a probably better option, at least for Munda languages, is to move them to the already pretty big "Further reading" section. They'll be useful, Anderson is a prominent figure in this little field, and it's inevitable that his name would crop up so often in the bibliography. – Uanfala (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear all, just wanted to give you some context for all the Anderson reference posts. We are not refspammers; we are a small group of language activists composed of linguists, anthropologists and student researchers who are working to improve the credibility of pages about endangered languages on Wikipedia. We have been encouraged by other Wikipedians to take on this task, and we are new to the Wikipedai editing world, so we are still learning and we want to abide by all community standards. As Uanfala noted, Anderson has a very large number of publications about Munda languages, and many of them are not listed on Wikipedia, so we were trying to be proactive and make them available on the pages about Munda languages. Further references would be fine. Similarly with Donohue, and many other prominent and emerging linguists in the field of endangered languages, our goal is make their works known on the pages of the languages they have worked on. Many of those languages only have a small number of authors who have published works on the languages, so you might see a lot of the same author on one page, but it's not out of malice or spamming. -michi44

Michi44 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Michi44, this is exactly what we call refspamming: people affiliated with a subject, promoting their work. Just as your own editing is spamming (1200% devoted to a couple of topics where you note a conflict of interest above). Guy (help! - typo?) 20:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, if your goal is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of endangered languages, then that's wonderful: we can never have enough people doing that! But on the other hand, it's a bit strange to see one editor (here I'm picking one at random) who's making a quick series of edits, to various topics from languages overviews to general grammar to individual language descriptions, all citing papers by the same author. This user's starting point seems to have been a set of papers that they're fond of, with their activity then driven by the motivation to find pages on Wikipedia that can improved with these papers. An alternative approach, and one that's going to result in greater improvement to our coverage of languages and one that's not going to raise any suspicion, is to take things the other way round: start with some part of some Wikipedia article that is incomplete or sub-par (plenty of those around!) and then seek the literature that will be needed to improve it (and it's overwhelmingly more likely that this literature will be comprised of texts by a number of authors). – Uanfala (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense, thanks Uanfala! Michi44 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

An item for your review

Hi. I left a response regarding Bab. at that article's talk page. I'll keep watching there for that discussion.

Did not want to mix up the discussion there, so I come here for this tangentially related item. In the article Talmud, it says that

It may also traditionally be called Shas (ש״ס), a Hebrew abbreviation of shisha sedarim, or the "six orders" of the Mishnah.

It looks like someone messed with the Shas (disambiguation) page a few days ago, adding something but dropping a "]". I would fix the bracket, but have no idea if anything else they did is correct. Could you take a look at it? Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that's completely outside the areas I'm familiar with. I came across Bab. not out of interest in the Babylonian Talmud linked there, but because the redirect Bab. (disambiguation) was tagged for speedy deletion of a type that I occasionally keep an eye on. I think the IP at Shas (disambiguation) can simply be reverted, I don't see anything constructive done by them. – Uanfala (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sanskrit

In the article for Sanskrit, you removed the (correct) sentence that Sanskrit has influenced non-Indo-European Indian languages like Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu etc.

That statement is true. Much of the vocab of Kannada, Malayalam and Telugu come from Sanskrit, even basic vocabulary like terms for sun, moon, day, night etc. This influence is comparable to influence of Latin on English. The phonology also has been modelled on Sanskrit and even native words are pronounced like that.

It is true that Tamil's phonology is not affected by Sanskrit and that it contains lesser Sanskrit loan words. However there is still influence as many Tamil words come from Sanskrit. There were many more words in the past which were replaced by native Tamil words as a result of linguistic purism.

Please restore that sentence because it is true.

03:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4042:2EAD:A843:0:0:EAC8:5F02 (talk)

Thank you for bringing this up. I agree in large measure with what you've written. This is currently being discussed at Talk:Sanskrit#Deletion of text on Sanskrit language influence on South Indian Languages of Kannada, Telugu and Malayalam. – Uanfala (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sylheti

Here's the one for Sylheti[2], Table 3. I'm too lazy to cite and make the adjustments; I was drawn into the maelstrom of the Brahmaputra, that's tiring, I tell you! ;) –Austronesier (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh what a long discussion. This appears to have resulted in some major restructuring, so I'd assume it's not as futile or boring as the section headings would imply? Thanks for the link, I've used it, though not with any less laziness. – Uanfala (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

We're not done yet, especially with [rkt] ("Kamta / Rangpuri"). Do you have ideas about how to present this variety in an adequate way? Toumlin (2009) is a great source; I enjoy how he disentangles the different layers of diffusion, instead of simply resorting to call it a "linkage" (even though Malcolm Ross was among the supervisors!). But this locally and genealogically confined case study is a good example of the "quagmire" you once referred to when we talked about IA as a whole. –Austronesier (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I can help: I don't know the topic area, and I haven't followed the talk page discussions (though what you say about Toumlin has piqued my interest and I might try to read it at some point, for pleasure:) ).
You mention our last conversation about IA; I have to admit I've since realised that I've been inadvertently hypocritical about those classifications. Going on and on about how uncertain the groupings are, while at the same time happily using them all, from the higher-level "zones" all the way to the smallest groups of subdialeccts. The structure of the family classification in the infoboxes and the embedded-lists layout of the navbox both instantiate the tree model, which we know is not always helpful. Maybe time to start thinking beyond it in the way we organise the templates? – Uanfala (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget about the categories. I have opened a few IA pages at random, and the second one already yielded a mismatch: Chhattisgarhi language is ∈ Eastern Hindi ⊂ Hindi in the infobox, but ∈ Eastern IA in the cat's.

I am always amazed to see how some editors try to map the minutest details of tree model classifications into sub-atomic categories (just for fun: click your way up in Molbog language). It's a maintanence nightmare, often creates undue weight on tentative classifications, and yes, it is quite Borges-ian, not just evoking the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, but also the The Library of Babel :) –Austronesier (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, those categories :). I think it's OK to neglect them, after all we don't need to give them any more attention than the readers do? – Uanfala (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, unless c. once in a month for forensic purposes... nudge, nudge, know what I mean? –Austronesier (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

For forensic purposes? – Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean, there is this wacky LTA that's really fond of categories... –Austronesier (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the one with the Urdu obsession? I remember now, yes. Haven't heard from him lately, have we? I hope he's back to his senses. – Uanfala (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

HP

Kindly check these changes]. I believe you removed the pie-chart in the past? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, this has to go: the census figures aren't of any use for the Pahari languages of Himachal as their speakers variously choose to give their language as either "Pahari", or "Hindi", or using the individual languages' name. – Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding editing of the page on Garhwali lang

Hi there, may I know that why did you remove the part which said that Garhwali is officially considered as a dialect of Hindi. I had clearly provided a link of MHRD's document conveying so. Mind you that MHRD abbreviates to Ministry of Human Resource and Development, India. It is the concerned body which deals with classification of languages and dialects in India. Binsarhills (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Binsarhills: it's about this edit, right? The fact that the Indian government counts Garhwali as a Hindi dialect is briefly mentioned in the preceding section: Garhwali language#Problems and issues (which, incidentally, also goes to a great length about the lack of officials status for Garhwali). I don't think there's a need to make that point a second time. Apart from that, I can't find what exact text you were citing, but I don't think it's likely that an official document would admit that the classification was done for political reasons. For that you'd need a source that explicitly states that the motivation is political; you can't write article text based on your own conclusions (even though they might be true), as that would go against Wikipedia's policy on original research. – Uanfala (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Binsarhills (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, may I know how can you source some information on a Wikipedia page based on another Wikipedia page. Binsarhills (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources for Western Pahari are in the bibliography at the end. I was pointing you to the article Pahari language because I thought you might find it useful. – Uanfala (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

If this was allowed then wouldn't someone edit some wiki page to use it as a source for another page so as to display what he/she wishes too? Binsarhills (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not allowed to use one Wikipedia page as a source for another. – Uanfala (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This is contradictory to the fact that jaunsari is a western pahari language although, jausar bhawar region lies in uttrakhand Binsarhills (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Same goes for southeast j&k Binsarhills (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, the current version of the lead already states that the languages are spoken in parts of neighbouring regions. I guess the current wording may be seen as too vague, so maybe the precise regions should be listed somewhere. I'm not very keen on going at great length about them in the first sentence though, as these are all outliers (I'm not taking Dogri into account here – as far as I'm aware, it's not commonly considered a member of this group), and any mention of "Jammu and Kashmir" will likely prompt readers to think of the unrelated "Pahari" of western Kashmir – a confusion we definitely want to avoid. – Uanfala (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Dogri was previously considered as a dialect of Punjabi however, now it has been adopted into the group of western pahari languages. You may check this one out:https://linguistlist.org/issues/29/29-1717/ Coming to my second point, you said that:"...any mention of "Jammu and Kashmir" will likely prompt readers to think of the unrelated "Pahari" of western Kashmir...". The whole purpose of a Wikipedia article is to inform it's readers everything about the topic without being concerned about the thoughts that may be induced in their minds. As an example, you might know about the Jat community in North India. Haryana has domination of the Jats all over the State, however, far west UP also shares the same culture. But, as you might know that Central and eastern UP has a contrastingly different culture. However, when distribution of the Jat community is described, the state of UP is also mentioned. If we go by your theory, mentioning of UP should prompt the readers to think that jats are like the people of central and eastern UP. Binsarhills (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, i would like to bring it to your notice that we had disagreements regarding calling Western Pahari languages as Himachali languages to which, you asked me to visit those links. I feel that the situation I described above gives me a perfect opportunity to explain what I am trying to say. Now, the word 'Jat' has something to do with ethinicicity, something which is cultural and has been practiced for centuries however the word 'haryanvi' is political as it associates the culture to a state formed a few decades ago. Now, would you call the people of west UP jats or haryanvi. Clearly both communities are same but they are still jats, aren't they? By acknowledging only the people who live in Haryana as jats, you are excluding the jats of neighbouring states although the kat community has a majority in Haryana state only. Similarly, by calling western pahari language as Himachali language, you are making readers think that only the languages of Himachal Pradesh are classified as western pahari language, which is far from reality. Binsarhills (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, the article isn't calling them "Himachali", it's calling them "Western Pahari" throughout, but it still has to note any alternative names out there. "Himachali" is one of those alternative names, even though (here I agree with you) it's not very appropriate. Of course, any issues around the use of this name can be noted in the article (if there are sources). As for the regions where spoken, I've added mention of Jammu and Uttarakhand in a way that's similar to your version [3]. Let me know if there are any problems with that. – Uanfala (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That's great. Cheers. Binsarhills (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I will do the necessary within the boundaries of our agreement. Binsarhills (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jadgali language (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jadgali language (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Shhhnotsoloud, the target of this redirect is Jatki language. It may not have the dab template at the end, but it does disambiguate the term "Jadgali language". G14, or for that matter any other speedy criterion, is not applicable to this sort of redirect (along with redirects to various indexes or lists that effectively enumarate the meanings of a term) – these rarely, if ever, manage to get consensus for deletion when brought up at RfD. – Uanfala (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Is "Jadgali" ambiguous? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

As explained in the fourth bullet point in the target, this term has been used both for the Jadgali language of western Balochistan (the current primary topic), and for any of the Indo-Aryan languages on the eastern fringe of the region. – Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I see. I will put a hatnote at Jadgali language. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You reverted me! There is no need for Jadgali language (disambiguation) to exist. You have explained there are only 2 uses: the primary use at Jadgali language and one other use explained at Jatki language. The hatnote I provided is concise, sufficient, and avoids any confusion that mat arise because Jatki language is not a disambiguation page. There is simply no point in a double redirect. Please undo your reversion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings there, but I generally find it neater if a hatnote at X points to X (disambiguation) rather than Y. That way you don't have to explain why it's pointing to a different title (and even if you do some readers may still think it's an error). This is also helpful in case of topic reorganisation in the future: then all you'll have to do is retarget the redirects, and you won't need to bother with the hatnotes again. – Uanfala (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

And as for the need for redirects to exist: ones ending in "(disambiguation)" are there not just for linking, they're also used by readers. – Uanfala (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. If you have no strong feelings would you please undo your reversion in order to avoid a redirect in the hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

"How many wikipedians does it take to change a light bulb?"

Your edit summary gave me a smile. On a day when we are up to Beta in the Hurricane name list and it's not even Autumn yet, I needed something to smile at. Thank you. In any case, the answer to your question is one, but within minutes someone will take out the new bulb and put the old one back. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

... and your post here gave me a hearty laugh: that's the best Wikipedia joke I've heard in a long while xD – Uanfala (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Knowledge of South Asian languages?

Hello Uanfala. Recently you made an edit at Hindko, which may indicate you know something about the languages of the subcontinent. I'm trying to mediate a dispute at Swati (Pashtun tribe) (per my talk page) and am wondering if I could address some questions to you when I actually get going on it. One of the puzzles is whether Swatis who speak Hindko should still be thought of as Pashto, or as Pashtunized, or [appropriate word here]. This issue is terribly important to the people who are involved so I shouldn't make light of it. But having reliable sources would be a wonderful thing. Or, if I can get any background information from long-time Wikipedia editors who know something. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston. I don't think I can be of much use. I've generally kept abreast of the linguistics literature on Hindko, but I don't know much about the ethnicities concerned. In Hazara, there are a number of Pashtun tribes who natively speak Hindko, and at least the passing mentions I've come across don't seem to suggest they're any less Pasthun for the fact (of course, passing mentions don't tell you much, things are likely to be complicated, and as you probably know the Pashto language is an important part of the Pashtun identity).
I don't know what literature is out there specifically about the Swatis, but if you're looking for some good background reading, Fredrik Barth has written some now classic texts about the Pasthuns of Swat (and the way ethnicity is delineated there). Though of course, Swat is a different region from the one where our Swatis are found, so not all his conclusions will necessarily be relevant.
One issue to be aware of is the ambiguity surrounding some of the terms. Swati is obviously one such term, and another is Hindko – it can refer to a number of related language varieties, but at least in the context of Hazara it exclusively refers to the Hindko spoken there (if you're going to dig up some literature, there's no need to look for stuff about the Hindko of say Peshawar or Kohat, as they function in a different social setting). Hindko (and the related Hindkun and Hindkowan) can have a variable meaning when used as an ethnic label as well: it can denote either all groups that speak Hindko, or a subset of them (I suppose in opposition to those Hindko-speaking communities that have switched to Hindko in recent generations).
Oh, and the sourcing of Swati (Pashtun tribe) is awful: all those Raj-era sources, and then why is the Encyclopedia Iranica article on Mithraism used to support statements about Swati subtribes?
Anyway, if you sort out that dispute, it would be a good thing: I've seen over the years how even bare mentions of Swatis in various articles will prompt IPs to edit the text to make it known that the Swatis are Pashtun, which will then be changed back by others who insist that they aren't. If this could be settled once and for all.. – Uanfala (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting your input on Uttarakhand's talk page

Hi Uanfala, since you have made edits on Uttarakhand before, I am sending you this message to alert you of a discussion on its talk page regarding the replacement of images in the infobox. Your input in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Prolix 💬 17:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Need your input!

Hi Uanfala, there's a discussion here regarding one of the 12 Jyotrlingas, there seems to be some sort of controversy regarding the actual location of a particular Jyotirlinga which I am trying to help solve. I don't know how how much knowledge you have regarding this subject but I hope you can provide some insight. Prolix 💬 19:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's beyond my area, Prolix. I mostly only do language articles. – Uanfala (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Prolix, your call was absolutely right. The user contesting it is indulging in WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree Kautilya3, his arguments are mostly original research but there definitely exists some controversy regarding the issue. I was able to find a source that corroborates his claims. Any idea which of the two locations should be given prominence? Prolix 💬 07:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It is just a district administration web site. At best it is documenting some local tradition. It may be worth a footnote against Nageshwar, saying that Nagnath in Maharashtra is regarded by some as this particular Jyotirlinga. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Awankari dialect and WP Pakistan

The |Punjab= parameter was removed from {{WikiProject Pakistan}} nearly nine months ago by UnitedStatesian (talk · contribs) with this edit at 04:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC). The page that had been linked, WikiProject Western Punjab, was deleted a week later by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) at 09:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC) following this MfD so there is no longer any reason for the parameter to exist. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose64, I wasn't aware of this history. Still, in my opinion it's better to let this parameter do something useful again, rather than start removing it from pages that use it. It's common practice in this area to categorise based on the relevant province (or state, for India). See, the template already supports parameters for the other two province – Sindh and Balochistan. I don't think it's important if the subproject pages exist or have been deleted, it's categorisation that matters. – Uanfala (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of task force parameters in WikiProject banners is not to categorise articles (we have article categories for that, such as Category:Punjabi dialects which is highly relevant here) but to provide a means of getting people together with a view to collaboration. So, there are a number of people who wish to collaborate on Pakistan-related articles, and they hold discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan; if some of these people wish to form a more specialised group for Punjab, they can propose it at WikiProject Pakistan (see WP:WPPRO#Proposing a task force). But unless they propose it and agree to its creation, we should not pre-empt that because it could create yet another still-born task force. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, a group of editors who are interested in monitoring articles to do with a certain province do exist, regardless of whether the papers have been filled in. It's beyond me why some of the relevant project pages have been deleted (Punjab, KPK), while others (Sindh, Balochistan) are kept. Do people have nothing better to do with their time? – Uanfala (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, if you would like to continue removing this parameter, please first get consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan. – Uanfala (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The parameter is already removed, it occurred in January this year as I pointed out earlier. The deletion reasons were given on that MfD; if you want the page reinstated, we have WP:DRV.

But please don't keep on doing this, it does not achieve anything useful, such as an extra line in the WikiProject banner (compare a page that uses |Sindh=yes, such as Talk:Sindh) or categorise for Punjab. All that happens is that it returns the page to Category:Pages using WikiProject Pakistan with unknown parameters. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The MfD was about the deletion of a certain project page. I don't see how this is relevant for not tracking Punjab-related articles anymore. If there is somewhere discussion about that, let me know. Otherwise, feel free to propose that on the project's talk page. – Uanfala (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The |Punjab= parameter depended upon the existence of a task force page, which is now deleted. The WikiProject was informed of that deletion one week before it occurred, see this alert. There is also a related notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan/Archive 1#Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjects. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Page moving guidelines

From WP:Page mover:

any administrator can grant this right to experienced and trusted users who regularly move pages and demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding page moving and naming.

Which is confusing because Wikipedia apparently has no "policies and guidelines regarding page moving" – there is only a Wikipedia:Article titles naming policy.

So:

any administrator can grant this right to experienced and trusted users who regularly move pages and demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia's policy regarding naming.

I'm annoyed because today I saw a page mover had round-robin moved a page where any cursory review of applicable guidelines – if we had any – would have shown this was "potentially controversial" and should have been rejected as a WP:RM technical request. And then shortly later this move was reverted by another page-mover round-robin... leaving a clusterf*** of a mess of a page history on the title.

And I can't really fault them for not following any guidelines because we don't have any clear guidelines. Your thoughts?

P.S. I just noticed that you don't have page mover rights yourself. You would probably have better judgment in using PM privileges than over half the editors who do have them. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't worry too much over whether the text you cite is technically correct in this literal way, but we do have guidelines, at least for page naming (this is the huge sprawl under Category:Wikipedia naming conventions). Otherwise, I sympathise with your cause: we don't seem to have any page explicitly marked as a guideline that is about page renaming. Wikipedia:Moving a page comes close (even though it is, correctly, marked as a how-to-guide), and it does contain the type of good advice that I imagine your pagemover has been spared. And there's some relevant bits at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves (though that page is really just a portal to the discussion venues). Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions is just what its title says – instructions for closing RMs, with a long rambling section at the end about post-move cleanup that is not restricted to RMs and that partially overlaps with the relevant section of Wikipedia:Moving a page. The overall structure across those pages leaves a lot to be desired. Any bold ideas for an overhaul?

As for page swaps, these can be a mess. Can we at least update the pagemovers' instructions, wherever they are, to remind people that they don't need to swap all at the time and that they should never do so across topic boundaries? – Uanfala (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk page

• Discussion regarding naturism Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Other uses (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Other uses (disambiguation). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Template:Other uses (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

To reply to your good question: deliberate trolling is what it is. A new way (or one I've never seen before) to try to avoid the deletion of that page as a redirect which already had been initiated. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it, doesn't it? But to be honest, I think it's more likely he was acting in good faith, being brave in attempting to translate from a language he doesn't know without any sort of aid, like dictionaries or Google Translate. I suspect he just tried to guess the meaning of some of the words, and then built a story around that. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The previous long-winded, repetitious, condescending, edit-war-infested adamancy of h attempts to try to get the word added to Stockholm led me, right or wrong, to disregard ASG & react the way i did to the creation of a silly and highly inappropriate article about a non-existent suburb. You have judged it & me fairly on my talk page. Frankly, that redirect's deletion close gave me quite a shock. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the history at Stockholm definitely puts things into context. As you've seen, I wasn't too happy with the close either. You can still get the page deleted though – via either WP:PROD or WP:AFD. – Uanfala (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it be for now. The fact that it exists was mainly irritating because of the way it was concocted and created. In 15 years of daily Wikipedia editing I think that's the most devious thing I've ever seen. Now, it's sort of a monument - know'd I mean? - and looks as silly as it deserves to look. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's a worthy entry to the Grand Museum of Wikisilliness :) – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Snoj

Youy wrote: Staszek Lem, this is handled at Wikidata

I know that, I just don't like interface of wikidata; I write [:] in wikipedia, and let the bot handle it. (So you didn't have to, by the way). Staszek Lem (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I see, so that's why! – Uanfala (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Soumyadeep980 (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and I like to thank you for your huge explained well-defined contribution but I found it unnecessary, I believe most people like to see a Summarized version of WiKi

Soumyadeep980, what you've done [4] is add to the top of the disambiguation page a description that applies to the first entry. It duplicates this first entry, and so is unnecessary. And it doesn't apply to the other entries, so it can be misleading. You can have a look at MOS:DABINTRO for what the intros of disambiguation pages are meant to be like. – Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Uanfala, Oh! thank you for pointing out I have fixed the typo :)

There is no typo, this is not about the formatting. – Uanfala (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Soumyadeep980, you don't seem to get the point. You've added the sentence Cham in briefly refer to: a member of an indigenous people of Vietnam and Cambodia, who formed an independent kingdom from the 2nd to 17th centuries AD. to the first line of the disambiguation page Cham. It duplicates the very first entry on that page, which is for the Chams (the ethnic group you were describing in your addition). If you believe the existing description for that entry is insufficient, feel free to expand (but briefly) that particular entry. – Uanfala (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Saraiki Phonology

Hi Uanfala - I hope you're well - especially during these times.

You're correct. In hindsight, I should've stated my reference but I was actually updating the table, sourced from a recent book called 'A Descriptive Grammar of Hindko, Punjabi, and Saraiki', but wasn't able to update it due to the revert/conflict.

Is it okay if I update the table?

- Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 00:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I also hope you're faring well. Well, if you update anything, it's usually a good idea to check the thing you're updating. Is it just the table, or is there explanatory text the gives more detail? What are the sources for that? After checking those sources, how will you integrate them with the information from the source you would like to use? How do you solve conflicts between the sources? If it's Bashir vs. Bahl, one question you could ask yourself is which of the two has a more solid basis for a claim about phonetics. A mention in a recent grammar that's mostly based on written elicitation and that follows this for its relatively sparse phonology content. Or an old, but meticulously supported monograph-length phonetics study? And is this a real disagreement, or an artefact of trying to match 1:1 the places of articulation of the two coronal implosives to those of the three plain coronal stops?

@Uanfala: - The source is called A descriptive Grammar of Panjabi, Hindko and Saraiki (2019), by Elena Bashir and someone else. The IPA Table they have included is revised based on (the current) Shackle's IPA table for Saraiki. It's not specifically based on the phonology of Saraiki but focuses on the differences between Punjabic languages in Pakistan.Personally I don't see anything wrong with it, however I'd like your opinion on this, now that it has been challenged.
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 01:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Taimoor Ahmed, I thought I had already given you my opinion :) – Uanfala (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: My bad. I thought you were asking for the name of the source, I didn't realise I had already given the name of of the source initially. In that case, never mind.

Have a good day/night :) :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 01:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Help Needed

I need someone to pronounce اوږد in the Quetta and Wardak dialects [with foucs on ʒ and ʝ, respectively] so I can upload it to the dialects page. I would also appreciate anyother dialect speakers to upload there versions. Can you please ask Pashtun wikipedians to upload the file on Wikimedia Commons and post it to my talk page.

PashtoAdder4 (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, PashtoAdder4. I'm afraid I don't know any speakers. You can try contacting people in Category:User ps-N, or asking at WT:PAK, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Afghanistan, or the Pashto Wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Zeeshan Mehood

I was really surprised to find blatant hoaxes by Zeeshan Mehmood's IPs in core articles such as Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Gilgit Baltistan which I had to just remove: [5], [6]. I came across a whole host of hoaxes by his IPs, some of which had been there for years really surprised as to how someone didn't notice them till now. Really egregious are his edits about the "provincial symbols", just FYI no province/territory of Pakistan has official symbols besides Sindh (which are limited to a bird, mammal and tree), and Pakistan's symbols are limited to these. Any other listings of symbols (sports, dances, animals etc.) are blatant hoaxes by him. What makes it more difficult is that he repeats his hoaxes across articles so it becomes difficult to easily identify them.

Please see if you can keep an eye on the provinces of Pakistan (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Gilgit Baltistan, Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Azad Kashmir, ICT)?) for hoaxes/edits by his socks, other articles that need to be under watch are the national symbols ones (i.e., Dish, Epic, Flower, Patron saint, Personification, Animals, Birds, Dances, Fruits, Instruments, Trees). Another problem is that he targets not only Pakistan but other countries as well with his hoaxes. These will be a bit easier to stomp out if we can at least stop his hoaxes on the core articles (provinces/symbol list ones). Gotitbro (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Good catch! So far, I've generally reverted on sight any edits that add state or province symbols if they come from an IP geolocating to the Greater Manchester area. But I don't keep an eye on everything, and obviously I haven't checked all the pre-existing content in the articles that I watch. That addition to Gilgit-Baltistan was made five years ago [7]! Zeshan Mahmood is especially difficult to track as he hits a number of countries (including India), and a range of articles: in addition to states and provinces, there's stuff like Fauna of Pakistan, articles about individual species, foods, dances, etc. (there are hundreds of them), he sometimes even requests redirects at WP:AFC/R. Pinging Kautilya3, Fylindfotberserk and Arjayay, who I assume watch a lot of the articles concerned – you're all probably already aware of that, but just in case. – Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Vow! I wasn't aware of any of this. I will keep an eye out for provincial symbols. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Pages using WikiProject Pakistan with unknown parameters

I'm gonna move onto a different category to clean, but you may want to take a look through Category:Pages using WikiProject Pakistan with unknown parameters to see if there's any other parameters you want to get added to the template before I return. The easiest approach may be to use the navigation at the top to jump to each letter and find them that way. JPG-GR (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I imagine it must be annoying on your side. I don't think the recent addition to Template:WikiProject Pakistan of unknown parameter checking has taken into account the parameters actually in use for the template. There appears to have been some detailed sub-classification with parameters like |Literature= or |Lahore=. I see that Mar4d has done a lot of tagging here – Mar4d, are these parameters still likely to be used, or should we let people remove them? I've tweaked the template to allow parameters for Punjab, KP and Kashmir, as these appear useful, but how many of the others are needed? – Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Uanfala Thanks for pinging me. Some of these projects were deleted for reasons I can't fathom, even while other provincial projects still have their parameters intact (e.g. Sindh, Balochistan) for many, many years. Given the sheer number of articles tagged under the Punjab/Khyber/Kashmir projects, I'd rather not have these tags removed, given the possibility that these projects may likely be revived and better organised in the near future (and because the precedent exists for other provinces), and also because it won't be the most constructive use of time. Therefore, my opinion would be to keep all of the following parameters on Template:WikiProject Pakistan: Punjab, Khyber, Sindh, Balochistan, Kashmir and Gilgit. I see you've made adjustments in that regard. Thanks! Mar4d (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC) If it were up to me, I'd also merge and redirect Template:WikiProject Karachi and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sindh into the main template but I don't have much knowledge of how that would work.

While we're at this, is it also possible to add importance ratings for each of the above subprojects into the Pakistan WikiProject template? Mar4d (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just added the |importance= parameters to the list of accepted parameters [8]. Your point was for the importance ratings to be displayed, right? I'll have to look how that's done, but if you have any specific edits in mind, let me know. – Uanfala (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! That's all actually, just the sub-projects and a way to display their importance ratings. Then the template should be fit to use. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Arbol for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arbol is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbol until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Diwali!

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Ah, it's today. Happy Diwali! – Uanfala (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Siding

The discussion at Talk:Siding (construction) has died off. I thought it was clear that we should not send 80% of the readers unnecessarily through the dab but, some disagree. So should I open another RM at this point? Newest numbers are still 75/25.MB 23:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, a new RM sounds like the only way forward. I don't think I will be able to go as far as supporting the move myself – I personally use a higher threshold for primary topics than most other people, but I certainly won't oppose it either: there's a strong case here, and a move back to the primary title will undoubtedly be of benefit to many readers. I expect most participants will support it. – Uanfala (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Long comment on Tropical sage

Thanks for the note about the comment; I will try to remember that when editing disambiguation pages and probably should have noticed that sooner. I just read the discussion on {{long comment}} and while disambiguation pages may not appear Special:ShortPages, the final comment confirms that set index articless are still included; you can see that Tropical sage is currently on the list. —Ost (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed the page was a set index article, and I wasn't aware these were not excluded from the short pages report either. Thanks for finding that out! – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for saving the articles from drowning

I just wanted to say "Thank you!" again for rescuing Belokhvostik and Mikhailovsky Square articles. Your support is very much appreciated! Sincerely, Partizan Kuzya (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, but I didn't do anything, apart from standing at the side and whining. – Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Atropatene = azerbaijan

Hello, Atropatene is the ancient name of the region of Azerbaijan. This is a historical fact. please dont delete my edits. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad785 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Atropatene is indeed the ancient name of Iranian Azerbaijan, not Azerbaijan. Old Azeri is not the ancient langauge of Azerbaijanis (as for the other part of your disruptive edits, which you do not address). Stating that ancient Azerbaijanis (WP:OR) spoke Old Azeri is pure anachronistic irredentism.[9] One more revert spree and I will report your personally to ANI. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Mohammad785, this is about your addition of entries for Old Azeri, Atropatene and Ottoman-Safavid War (1603-1618) to the page Azerbaijan (disambiguation). That page is a disambiguation page, its only purpose is to provide navigation to the various articles whose topics are known as "Azerbaijan". See the line at the top of the page? It says Azerbaijan or Azərbaycan may also refer to: Can the word "Azerbaijan" ever refer to the Old Azeri language, or that 17th-century battle? I'd be really surprised if it did. Feel free to explain if you believe the opposite is true, but please don't go on like that. You've been reverted there several times by several people, and if you continue edit warring, the only thing you're likely to achieve is getting yourself blocked. – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, and I may have been wrong about the ancient Azeri and the Safavid-Ottoman war, and that Albania is now in Europe and no longer belongs to the Caucasus, but the real name of Azerbaijan is Aran, and this page is about Azerbaijan. Not about the country of Aran (the fake Republic of Azerbaijan). Before becoming an independent country, Aran was part of Iran along with Azerbaijan, Russia, and Aturpatgan is not only related to Iranian Azerbaijan, it is related to the whole region of Azerbaijan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad785 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ramsdale

There are hundreds of surname pages containing two names. If you do not like such pages, please oppose all of them.Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Valentiny, Grella

The main reason for having a separate surname article is to provide space for encyclopedic information about the name, like origin and current distribution. If a surname page doesn't contain any content beyond a list of Wikipedia articles, it performs only a navigational function. In such cases, it makes sense to split it out of a dab page if that list of articles becomes too big. For the case of Ramsdale, there are only three entries in total (two of them surnames); distributing three entries across two pages doesn't seem like the optimal navigational solution. – Uanfala (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

My mistake

re [10] yes, that was a mistake. My guess is that I accidentally cut rather than copied but it certainly wasn't intentional! Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Good work Wiki Rajasthan 08:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Uanfala, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Re:Edit warring and sources

Moved to User talk:Anupam § Edit warring and sources

I replaced that source with several reliable sources, including the Census of Pakistan. There should be no issues with the content now. If you have any, you are welcome to discuss them rather than remove them altogether. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Can't we keep discussions in one place, please? They're much easier to follow: I've posted on your talk page so I'll be watching it: you don't risk losing me. – Uanfala (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I prefer to respond on the talk page of the individual who has asked the questions. If you'd like to move the discussion here, that'd be fine. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I am extremely upset that you attempted to entirely thwart my efforts to bring the article to DYK status with a subject you only know about peripherally. I would have been happy to find more references and improve the article but you tried to block me from doing so. That was very rude. Anupam^Talk 01:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is a subject about which I know very little. Are you an expert on mediaeval Indian history, by any chance then? The DYK nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Torwali people. I'm sorry if my commenting there has been perceived as rude. But where else was I to flag the problems with the proposed DYK hook, or with the article section it was based on? – Uanfala (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Uanfala, thank you for replying to my query made at here, though at my personal talk page. You indicate that you "found that article from your contribs" and then happened to open a talk page thread on the most recent edit I made there. Why did you do that? Also, you state that "I haven't look at any other articles there." However, just yesterday you made a sarcastic comment in a bilateral conversation between me another user on his talk page—one with whom you have never interacted with. I wish to assume good faith this time, but I want to inform you of WP:FOLLOWING. I don't want to see this kind of behaviour from you again. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if I did the same thing to you. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind keeping conversations in one place, please? I've posted on your talk page and I'm watching it; incidentally, it was Roxy's unusual edit there that drew me to Alexbrn's talk page (which is what you're referring to). – Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I have access to the sources that I use, unlike you, who openly admits that you are not. Just on the talk page of the Torwali people, you truncated a quote that User:LearnIndology had to type out in full for others to see the context after you refused to provide it in its entirely. Many of your edits, such as this one dismiss perfectly cited information as "nonsense" because they may conflict with your personal ideology (you have removed in many places anything to do with the pre-Islamic history of northern South Asia). That isn't acceptable on Wikipedia and neither is using misleading edit summaries such as "the statement also appears to be contradicted by the quote". I'm not going to escalate this now but note that I am going to sternly remind you of WP:HOUNDING one more time. As far as your behaviour yesterday and meddling in a bilateral conversation, I do not appreciate it and am firmly telling you not to do it ever again. Thank you, Anupam^Talk 23:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Anupam, if you have read the article Hindko or its sources, you would have known why it's nonsense to be speaking about Hindkowans of the 11th century. If you see any issues with any particular edit I've made, or edit summary I've used, you can let me know. Now, if you really have access to the sources you cite, then you really should first read them before citing them. As I implied on your talk page, I'm not interested in cleaning up after your edits, but that doesn't mean someone won't do it sooner or later. – Uanfala (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The source indicated that Hindko-speakers accepted Islam in "recent times" (perhaps like the nearby Torwali speakers who probably became monolithically Muslim by the 17th century); there isn't anything controversial about that and the sentence could have been edited to reflect the original quote from the source (which is probably why that was there in the first place; see WP:V). When I have time, we can revisit that issue on the talk page there. If I didn't have access to the sources I use, then how was I able to create the article in the first place? I had to read about their cuisine, culture, clothing, and history. Did you think I just did a CTRL+F for "food", "history", etc.? For the most part, User:Uanfala, in the past, relations between the two of us have been good and I would hate to spoil that. On articles where our edits intersect, we are usually able to form a consensus on the talk page and I'd like to continue to do that. Please honour my admonishment above with regard to the aforementioned policy and I think we can continue about our work. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

That source – Ibbetson's Glossary should never have been used in the first place. If there are reliable sources about the conversion to Islam, sure, use them. I'm glad you believe our interactions in the past have been amicable, but I can't really say I've been happy. Whenever you've made any substantial edit to an article I watched and cared about, I would have had to spend days tracking down and reading the sources you had ostensibly cited, and then correcting the numerous mistakes you had introduced. If you do read the books and papers you cite, then why do you always seem to misrepresent them? As I wrote on your talk page, I believe you need to fundamentally rethink your approach to writing content. And when other people are subjecting some of it to scrutiny, they're likely not doing it to wind you up, they're doing it because they care about the encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It's quite alright. I'm not here to make you happy, but to improve coverage on various articles. Unlike most of your edits, which are filled with reverts, arguments, and deletions (and the occasional creation of disambiguation pages), most of my edits involve expanding or creating articles, for which I have been recognized by other editors. That's the very reason your false grievances aren't recognized by any serious editor, as evidenced by the incisive response of the DYK reviewer to you in your baseless accusations against me. It's hard to repeatedly take what you say at face value since your removals give off the impression of being ideologically driven, in addition to the accompanying misleading edit summaries that others have also pointed out (such as today). If you state that "other people are subjecting some of it to scrutiny", that's not what you did yesterday and today with your sarcastic comments. If you'd like to be appreciated, work for it and create content, not tear others down. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 00:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You really don't see the problem, do you? – Uanfala (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem, as I spelled out, was your violation of WP:FOLLOWING and WP:CIVIL. Please don't do it again. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem, Anupam, is that you churn out content on history, ethnography and languages, without doing your research. You refuse to appreciate the distinction between reliable and unreliable sources, you cite books you apparently have not read, and you misrepresent the sources that you cite. This is the problem. – Uanfala (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Uanfala, I disproved your claims above and you shouldn't repeat them to obfuscate what you have done. All of the other editors commenting on the talk page of Talk:Torwali people, one of whom is an academic in Indology, agreed with me and none agreed with you, except a WP:SPA editor who was recently named at WP:SPI. Every single source that has discussed the Torwali people has mentioned Raja Gira and you still can't see the relevance of him. That's not my problem; that's yours. The only thing I can do is to fit it in your habitual pattern of removing pre-Islamic heritage of northern South Asia (and trust me, I really want to assume good faith). I can point out examples where you have removed such information, but left completely uncited and far-fetched information intact. Anyways, I do not have time to repeat myself over and over. I have informed you of the appropriate policies regarding your recent behaviour and suggest that you follow them. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in editing and trust that if we disagree again, we can work out the issues on the talk pages of the article. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 00:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion you're referring to is at Talk:Torwali people. I'll leave it to others to make their own judgements about who said or what, or about the competence of the "academic in Indology". – Uanfala (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• u:Uanfala is now following and WP:HOUNDING what I do?[11] This is not acceptable. Stop doing that, I am asking you respectfully. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice try. The article has been on my watchlist for years, and this isn't the first time I've had to clean up after an edit you've made to it. – Uanfala (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, Uanfala can follow whoever he sees the need to. I am confident he always acts in the best interest of Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

IP on Azad Kashmir

This guy went on a rampage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw the massive copy-editing they did on Neelam Valley yesterday, and it was partially helpful. Are they doing anything disruptive on the other articles? – Uanfala (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't easily separate the disruptive edits from the helpful ones. So I left them alone. But Azad Kashmir has been marked as "dependent territory" everywhere, which is unsourced. The link to Districts of Pakistan was also removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh no: they've been at it again: this time inserting flags into the infoboxes. – Uanfala (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's partly because of situations like this that we need a dedicated infobox, either for Kashmir or for Pakistan. Most of this mess wouldn't have happened if we had one. – Uanfala (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

For your review

If you get the chance, could you take a look at this? Anything with "undoubtedly" ....!--RegentsPark (comment) 16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Not my area, but I've left a note at Talk:Pashtuns#Linguistic origin. "Undoubtedly" here has just been taken from the source, but yeah, that word is one of the best markers of highly doubtful statements :) – Uanfala (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories

You will detect the irony when I suddenly remember this[12], no? ;) –Austronesier (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, yes: I was thinking of that when filling out those CfD forms, hated every second of it. But unlike, say, Category:Linguists of Chapacuran languages (which is silly, but largely harmless), the two EIr categories can cause trouble. I think something similar can be done about the various subcats of Category:Indo-Aryan languages: nuking the whole rickety structure and leaving the category as a nice flat list. But what little enthusiasm for categories I had today has already evaporated without a trace, so I'm going to leave that for others :) – Uanfala (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, the "Linguists of XXX"-categories can also be source of annoyance when they only contain the worst contributors who just happen to have a WP page, as in the case of Roger Blench, who was the only inhabitant of Category:Linguists of Enggano—btw, thanks to Liz, the category soon was gone after I had depleted it :) –Austronesier (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Blench as a linguist of Enggano, lol! – Uanfala (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Just wondering, how common is this?[13] (No, not tagging by IPs, but the tagged information.) I have found anecdotical evidence here on p. 43, but is its occurrence above the "speech defect threshold"? –Austronesier (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

That's strange. True, if you spend any decent length of time in Bulgaria, sooner or later you'll come across someone whose r is guttural. I think this is strictly individual, and it's not more than a few percent of speakers who do that. Sounds like being around the "speech defect" level? I don't think it's any more common in Sofia than elsewhere. – Uanfala (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I wouldn't drop a mention in Waray language#Consonants either just because my mom happens to have this very idiosyncrasy :) –Austronesier (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah! So you can speak Waray? :) – Uanfala (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Uhm, between war-1 and war-1.5 maybe. If quizzed, I'd probably do better with Proto-Malayo-Polynesian than with Waray vocabulary. Even my Tagalog isn't as good as it should be. Adult socialization made me much more competent in Indonesian and and a few local languages of Sulawesi. –Austronesier (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Uanfala!

Happy New Year!

Uanfala,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Fylindfotberserk! – Uanfala (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)